Poll

do you like gillary clintion (Please be serious when polling)

yes
15 (8.8%)
no
156 (91.2%)

Total Members Voted: 171

Author Topic: do you like hillary clinton?  (Read 7159 times)

personality is important

at least for some people

My Mother Is Rander Fond Of Hillary She SAy She Fix THe country But... .Who Can Trust Her Yeah

My Mother Is Rander Fond Of Hillary She SAy She Fix THe country But... .Who Can Trust Her Yeah
thank you for your wisdom

My Mother Is Rander Fond Of Hillary She SAy She Fix THe country But... .Who Can Trust Her Yeah
Man, how crazy is it that there are people on the forums born in 2008?

I was literally on Blockland before this user was born.


The same can be said about literally any President that works at odds with Congress. Obama has actually worked remarkably hard to make good on several of his promises. If you recall, our entire government shut down because of debate over the funding of the Affordable Care Act, and that's just one thing!
Our government shutting down because of a debate doesn't mean it was good, rather it sounds like they can't debate normally and instead have to shut off everything else just to focus on one thing, which should never happen unless it's to debate nuclear warfare.

Even with the ACA, US healthcare is still expensive as forget, and still has hospitals ramming you up the ass in bills. Sure it made things cheaper, but it's all still way too expensive.

I don't see how that's even a strong argument to vote against Hillary.
what, her not being reliable and truthful?
ok
Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight
then
ANYTHING??

Laws raising the federal minimum wage and enacting comprehensive immigration reform are 1000x more likely to pass Congress than any of Annoying Orange's key policies.
So not only would you rather cater to what Congress would want instead of what the People would want, you want to raise the federal minimum wage? Dude.

We're in the middle of a war right now and spending for the last 15 years has been increasing constantly, because of these wars. There's no way this country's economy will last if we do that while still at war, spending millions daily. Just have a look at the US Debt Clock, and tell me that we should raise minimum wage when our own country can't even pay off it's own debt. I'm all for raising minimum wage, but at a time of such economic struggle in the most prosperous operable fashion of a country (Capitalism), raising wages is the last thing we should be worried about.

And also, forget the Immigration Reform Act, do you even know how much that would cost? Why would you rather tend to all of these people who entered illegally, who are social aliens to us, instead of caring for all of these veterans? People who came from our home, us, that come back from these wars who are either dying, homeless, suffering from PTSD/Mental Illnesses, or are dying, homeless, and suffering from PTSD. It has nothing to do with racism or discrimination, it's common sense to tend to your own before tending to someone you literally have no relation with, this situation is equivalent to helping a random injured stranger over an injured family member.

Not to mention the people funding these wars are the ones Hilary sit's at the dinner table with, AKA Bankers, Politicians, etc.

Nobody in Congress, Democrat or Republican, will put huge trade barriers between us and China/Mexico, and they sure as hell won't approve funding for 'the wall'. If we're speaking purely about a President's capacity to overcome obstructionist bullstuff, Hillary is the clear winner.
That's because they're all Democrats and Republicans, this two party system is bullstuff and needs to be absolved, and is one of the reason this country has so much opposition against itself, because you have people going at each other due to put in place "opinions" and "standards" to each group instead of coming together for an actual solution to anything in any circumstance that benefits the majority of everyone.

They will approve funding for the wall if they cut wayy loving back on spending, which is what Annoying Orange will do, because unlike these politicians handling the money, we'll have a businessman handling it instead, who knows how to intelligently invest in one thing over another, and when not to at all.

Except we're not speaking of a President's capacity to overcome obstructionist bullstuff, but considering we are now, how will Hilary overcome any of this "obstructionism" when as I've stated, she can't even answer simple questions. Before you tell me to stop leaning on this as a defense point, how do you think she'll be able to overcome anything OUTSIDE the banker's interests (the one's who's funding her, in which they decide what decisions she makes, which she agrees with to begin with), when simple questions are already either a difficulty, or something she avoids. forget. That. No President or candidate should ever be avoiding questions of any kind, which is what she's been doing for years.

edit: and about trade barries, Annoying Oranges not a loving idiot, he can cut ties with Mexico (which to my knowledge he doesn't want to), but forget he literally says way too often that China is a valuable commodity to us, and breaking ties with them would be stupid and have an incredibly negative impact on our country, so I don't know where you got that from.

She voted the same as Bernie Sanders on 93% of her Senate votes. Are you calling Bernie a moderate?
funny you mention this because I never even mentioned Bernie, focus at what's at hand and reply to what I'm saying instead of bringing up other things.

otherwise no, I'm not for Bernie but he definitely is a whole lot loving better than Hilary Cliton
« Last Edit: May 31, 2016, 11:10:02 PM by rambo1220 »

Our government shutting down because of a debate doesn't mean it was good, rather it sounds like they can't debate normally and instead have to shut off everything else just to focus on one thing, which should never happen unless it's to debate nuclear warfare.
the point of mentioning it was to show that our politics are incredibly divisive and congress would have rather taken irresponsible inaction that shuts the federal government down than compromised with the president. this is to show the fact that obama, and whoever sits in the oval office next, is not alone in politics. the legislature is the most powerful branch of the federal government, and if it wants to sit on its ass and do nothing the president can't do anything but whine about it.

So not only would you rather cater to what Congress would want instead of what the People would want, you want to raise the federal minimum wage? Dude.

We're in the middle of a war right now and spending for the last 15 years has been increasing constantly, because of these wars. There's no way this country's economy will last if we do that while still at war, spending millions daily. Just have a look at the US Debt Clock, and tell me that we should raise minimum wage when our own country can't even pay off it's own debt. I'm all for raising minimum wage, but at a time of such economic struggle in the most prosperous operable fashion of a country (Capitalism), raising wages is the last thing we should be worried about.
several things here:
1) our budget is not increasing primarily due to war. some of the most notable inflation is in autonomous spending on programs like social security and medicare due to the greying of the american population and baby boomers beginning collection. do with that information what you like. war tends to be more of a stimulant for the US's economy regardless.
2) minimum wage isn't something paid for by the government. it's something paid for by private businesses. this will not affect our national debt, but it will have effects on the labor market. seventh wasn't even directly advocating minimum wage though, he was using it as an example of something that's much more likely to pass than a giant wall across the mexican-american border.

That's because they're all Democrats and Republicans, this two party system is bullstuff and needs to be absolved, and is one of the reason this country has so much opposition against itself, because you have people going at each other due to put in place "opinions" and "standards" to each group instead of coming together for an actual solution to anything in any circumstance that benefits the majority of everyone.
the existence of a two-party system is a natural end result of our electoral system. the divisiveness in politics isn't strictly because of the existence of two parties, however. this division is more related to the trend of political polarization in the united states, coupled with party dealignment and a general lack of political efficacy. in short: yeah, stuff sucks right now and we all know it

They will approve funding for the wall if they cut wayy loving back on spending, which is what Annoying Orange will do, because unlike these politicians handling the money, we'll have a businessman handling it instead, who knows how to intelligently invest in one thing over another, and when not to at all.
the wall won't get passed for more reasons than just its cost. you have to convince people that the wall is actually going to be a beneficial investment for one, and you also have to consider the foreign policy implications of erecting a gigantic barrier separating us from our allies. most people who support the wall say that mexico will largely pay for it anyway, which is another iffy idea

Except we're not speaking of a President's capacity to overcome obstructionist bullstuff, but considering we are now, how will Hilary overcome any of this "obstructionism" when as I've stated, she can't even answer simple questions.
short answer: she won't. Annoying Orange won't. no president will. it's not that easy.

edit: and about trade barries, Annoying Oranges not a loving idiot, he can cut ties with Mexico (which to my knowledge he doesn't want to), but forget he literally says way too often that China is a valuable commodity to us, and breaking ties with them would be stupid and have an incredibly negative impact on our country, so I don't know where you got that from.
the point is that he wants to implement policy that would definitely stress trade relations (and foreign relations) with those countries, and he definitely advocates for isolationist policy which is ultimately bad for the economy because it actively discourages free trade

funny you mention this because I never even mentioned Bernie, focus at what's at hand and reply to what I'm saying instead of bringing up other things.

otherwise no, I'm not for Bernie but he definitely is a whole lot loving better than Hilary Cliton
bernie was brought up because he and hillary share similar senate track records, therefore it would be silly to claim that hillary has no progressive background unless you were to also claim that bernie doesn't
« Last Edit: May 31, 2016, 11:27:26 PM by otto-san »

we should totally seize Syrian and Iraqi oil controlled by CIA and kill terrorist's families because you know, that's a totally non interventionist thing to do

Our government shutting down because of a debate doesn't mean it was good, rather it sounds like they can't debate normally and instead have to shut off everything else just to focus on one thing, which should never happen unless it's to debate nuclear warfare.
It is definitely not a good thing. The point I was trying to make by bringing that up is that Barack Obama didn't get re-elected for slacking on the job. He worked incredibly hard to defend key aspects of his policy (regardless of whether you like the ACA or not).

So not only would you rather cater to what Congress would want instead of what the People would want, you want to raise the federal minimum wage? Dude.

We're in the middle of a war right now and spending for the last 15 years has been increasing constantly, because of these wars. There's no way this country's economy will last if we do that while still at war, spending millions daily. Just have a look at the US Debt Clock, and tell me that we should raise minimum wage when our own country can't even pay off it's own debt. I'm all for raising minimum wage, but at a time of such economic struggle in the most prosperous operable fashion of a country (Capitalism), raising wages is the last thing we should be worried about.
That isn't even close to what I said. I actually don't support raising the minimum wage. I brought it up as a random example of Hillary's policy. It's much more likely to pass than any of Annoying Orange's trade and immigration policy.

Also, military spending isn't responsible for the majority of the national debt. Most of our debt comes from our investments in other countries and the securities that we sell to them. It's not entirely a bad thing either; we've never defaulted on loans.

And also, forget the Immigration Reform Act, do you even know how much that would cost? Why would you rather tend to all of these people who entered illegally, who are social aliens to us, instead of caring for all of these veterans? People who came from our home, us, that come back from these wars who are either dying, homeless, suffering from PTSD/Mental Illnesses, or are dying, homeless, and suffering from PTSD. It has nothing to do with racism or discrimination, it's common sense to tend to your own before tending to someone you literally have no relation with, this situation is equivalent to helping a random injured stranger over an injured family member.
Do you know how much it would cost? Yes, naturalized citizens gain access to social programs, but they also pay the full range of taxes and contribute more human capital to our economy. Not only that, but their families come over here too, cutting off those remittances that Annoying Orange keeps barking about. Go ahead and make your argument for why this will damage the economy.

Also, as for homeless people and veterans, cutting off immigration from Mexico entirely will do absolutely nothing to better their situation. Chronically homeless people and disabled veterans are not competing with illegal immigrants for jobs. They are largely unemployable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

That's because they're all Democrats and Republicans, this two party system is bullstuff and needs to be absolved, and is one of the reason this country has so much opposition against itself, because you have people going at each other due to put in place "opinions" and "standards" to each group instead of coming together for an actual solution to anything in any circumstance that benefits the majority of everyone.


edit: and about trade barries, Annoying Oranges not a loving idiot, he can cut ties with Mexico (which to my knowledge he doesn't want to
Civics 101, bucko. President is not God. There's something called checks and balances that ensure that one wild-card President can't completely dismantle our established relationships with foreign nations.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2016, 12:12:10 AM by SeventhSandwich »

while i don't think any of the main candidates are fit for being president (with the possible exception of sanders), i don't think neither of the presidents will do anything when they actually become president. hillary won't actual be as evil as she looks, or donald Annoying Orange won't build a wall (which i don't think he can, in which i don't have proof about iirc) after being president

im not of age to vote but after what i said, i wouldn't think i vote anyways, and it will possibly stick to me that way.

Hillary Flinstone is a fraud. She let her husband, Bulb Flinstone, bang that floozy

I can't tell if a lot of the controversy surrounding her is the internet hate machine at it's best considering nearly everything I hear from the left and the right are sensationalist pieces about how much of a horrible cunt she apparently is.

Ultimately she's a cookie cutter pro-establishment democratic candidate. If you like status quo then hillary is definitely up your alley. Annoying Orange and Bernie's policies may be too daunting for some folks so I'd see why they would seek some sort of middle ground.

The email thing is dumb and it probably will kick up some pretty nasty stuff knowing ~~drama~~ but from what it looks like she's honestly the least zany and wacky candidate right now. I honestly believe everyone would be singing a different tune if she didn't buy into Annoying Orange's anti-establishment bullstuff and instead appealed to her seniority as a politician and her experience. If she's got one thing going for her, it's that she knows how the system works.

I'd rather have Annoying Orange, that says a lot

I'd rather have Annoying Orange, that says a lot
NO BLOCKHEADS OR MUSLIMS